The million dollar question….We’ve been banging on the proverbial doors trying to find out why the known EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x has yet to be officially announced, priced (it’s going to be $10,000+) and made available to the people that need it.

The latest we’ve heard, and from a pretty knowledgeable person is that the lens has needed a redesign in regards to the “bump” that holds the built-in 1.4 TC. The person wouldn’t elaborate as to why it was an issue, but it was brought to the attention of Canon at the Olympics that some pros were complaining that the “bump”, or a function of the “bump” got in the way of something. Again, what the something was wasn’t elaborated upon. If anyone out there knows, I’d love to hear it.

This is about the only explanation I have received beyond “manufacturing issues”, which could also be playing a small roll I suppose. However, lately we’ve seen that the new super-telephoto lenses are now making their way to “in stock” status around the planet. Maybe we’re closer to the new supertelephoto finally being announced.

Sorry we can’t be more conclusive on this one, this is the best information we have.

M.ST

Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.

I have both TC´s, why should I pay extra money for a build in TC?

My personal opinion: The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

this lens is not meant to be a walk around lens.. just like the 400 f/2.8 and 500 and 600 f/4's.. you don't see people walking around town with those unless they have a purpose to.. its meant for sport, wild life, and journalism when you need flexibility and be the fastest possible lens you can get. hence the price tag. the 100-400 is more of just a general purpose tele that does everything which is why it is smaller and lighter

as far as the TC goes.. its for connivence.. so you don't have to take your body off put the TC on and put your body back on.. Just move the lever and you're ready to go! just like TV lenses (which is what that stems from) it just makes things easier on the fly so you can get that shot more easily

I'm definitely not going to buy this lens, but it has been really interesting following it from the 5DIII spy shots in Africa(or wherever) to the Olympics. There is definitely quite a bit of mystery and speculation about it. I've been wondering why it hasn't been officially announced yet.

I imagine that perfectly centering the extender when swung in from the side was a decent engineering challenge.

It would also have to be user-proof such that if the user believed they had engaged the extender, that it did engage and was perfectly aligned and couldn't move on its own even when the lens was bumped around.

This lens and 6D will show up in HK at the end of Nov , to celebrate the 40th year anniversary of Canon HK. Here is the link, sorry, only Chinese version is available. http://www.canon.com.hk/imaginenation/

Most of them are not very happy with the build quality of the build in TC and the image quality if you add the TC.

I have both TC´s, why should I pay extra money for a build in TC?

My personal opinion: The lens is too big and havy as a walkaround lens compared to the EF 100-400 IS. The solution with the build in TC is not amazing. For the mentioned price I prefer the normal big whites.

Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both... )

Why is someone paying $10k on this f4 and not getting the 400 f2.8 mk.ii ? (Unless they can afford both... )

200-400 would be a very useful zoom range to have on the sidelines of a basketball, football, soccer, baseball, etc game. That being said, 168-420mm f/4 is better (Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + 1.4x) and a helluva lot cheaper. Will it be as sharp? No. Good enough for the online and print media who buy such images? For sure. Will it focus fast or accurately enough? That's the question.